firstly...

First, I have to say that I haven't been a great reader of blogs as every time a person asks me to read one, the blog seems to peter out after a couple of days. In conversation today, when I mentioned that I had to do one as part of homework tonight, the other person asked if they could look at it, and I responded that I couldn't figure out why anyone outside of the class would want to read about the difference between instruction, teaching, education, and training.... and they looked at me like for once they would agree.

Particularly, this seemed true as the two readings seemed to perhaps differ as to how the writers each or severally thought about the subject. Sort of in the ball park swinging at the same balls, but wanting to refer to them as if they weren't the same, though mostly related.

Perhaps that is unfair. Teach, instruct, design. Teach, train, instruct. And all of this is education. One chapter each somewhat out of context.

So, reactions. "Systematic and reflective process of translating principles of learning and instruction..." No argument and very little reaction until it comes to dealing with the teacher element of this discussion. It seems that a teacher can be all of the things that are listed in the first part of the chapter and especially as illustrated in Figure 1.1. From the Drivers' Ed. teacher who talks on his cell in the on the range as kids are out getting education to the training that I do regularly as a means of having the student prepared to evenutally get the teaching that we are hoping to do. It seems teachers do all of these things, that reflection often seems a victim of time, and that what we are often hoping for out of technology is another human and that when it falls short, we just avoid it altogether. (That feels like a bit of a soapbox, but this being the first time out, I hope you will tell me how much to react and how much to stay with the subject...) The point there is that functionally I feel like that Figure 1.1 should have been done with an airbrush, that the lines are constantly fuzzing in and out of focus and that this seems to be part of the problem: the technology doesn't do that very well in my experience. This is jumping a little into the other reading, but the assumption that a designer CAN identify instructional goals, analyze learners and contexts and write valid performance objectives and hope for them to be continually applicable is a little pie-in-the-sky. The examples of AP Economics, invalidated by current standards, that will nonetheless continue to be tested as written because it can't be rewritten for a couple more years (technology) comes to mind as well as the constant rewriting of things like the UBSCT. I realize that the reflective and evaluative nature of any of this is part of the game, but the tone of the readings seems to be a bit over confident, sort of a "You get this all down, and you have it made."

(Back to the same old question. Do I reflect, react, or just report on what I read?)

Up next, the teaching that isn't instruction. The notion of this seems to me to be a prejudice of the writers. If the teacher of whatever goes in with the idea of exposure/exploration, isn't that a goal? Or is it just the perception or observation of the writer's that this isn't tight enough? I have the constant problem of dealing with the issue of trying to teach/increase/discover creativity in the students that I teach, particularly those who say flat out that they are not creative. I'm afraid that as much as I fret about, plan, review, ideate (verb form of ideation... both of which come up red in Blogger), and retry, the result will always be fuzzy. But it seems to me that this is the most important aspect that I can teach in art. I doubt that any teacher, even the one that only has a goal of getting through a class goes in with pure experience, pure education, in mind for more than a day or two. The goals may not be seen as valid, but goals they are. And when confronted with some of the attempts to state these fuzzy goals that exist in some curricula that will be in place with no review for YEARS as there are, it is no wonder that what maybe valid instructional goals get interpreted as pure education.

What is design? Well, it isn't the celtic knot, the single strand that follows a very precise pattern in order to have it work that is depicted. Ball of worms, perhaps. Celtic knot? No. At least not to the folks that I knew that used to depict them... or perhaps that is knot to those folks. Anyway, yes, I got the point. I would be great if it were linear (celtic knot, however curved) but it isn't. What I thought of as a possible useful metaphor (since they said these are important) was three building of several stories with walkways that connect them in the center on all levels and stair cases as well. But that image has already been done in more elegant way in the film versions of Hogwarts from Harry Potter with the moving stairs.

I enjoyed this section. I was intriguing to think of all the effort to make this as clean as possible after sitting through as many design (set, show) meetings as I have and having listened to those fights... okay, discussions... as several designers try to make their vision of something fit with the goals of the director and the others involved. And it made me think of the situations we are in working in a PLC at Highland (Fine Art) that has to deal with the vagueries of fine art as something that is supposed to be as precise as instructional design. But perhaps we fall into that category where potential consequences don't really justify great expenditures involved in careful design. The instructional design process congealed out of Rowland by the authors closely mirrors the Four Guiding Question that we use in PLC work at school, except that there are three. We add what action is taken to remediate which is implied and stated in the earlier reading.

Now for one last question/complaint: how can the example of the Digital Magic and and the sentence writing of the appendix in the Systematic text be compared? I know I seem a bit obsessed with implementation but to drop an example like that in when it probably mirrors the planning involved in the appendix example (about which I only have to say, "WHEN did they do all of this, pray tell?") belies what is often repeated about "matching". They describe a system which is fairly complex which is then exemplified by "Digital-Magic?" Okay, again, I get it. But I have to say, when I decided to start reading the Appendix example after the two chapter, I was almost dumbfounded.

Oh. One last thing I really appreciated was Figure 1.2 and it's accompanying text. In particular the follow-on in the section that discussed advantages and limitations of a Systematic Instructional Design system, and the emphasis on congruence. (I just didn't like the celtic knot...)

I gotta get prepped for Monday having realized a major flaw in the plan for my Ceramics 2 and 3 classes this afternoon. So my request: do I write more? Less? More evaluative and less reactive? More formal, or okay? (I wonder if I will ever again say to a student, "Long enough to cover the subject.") I'll cover the Systematic text in more detail if you want, but I anticipate it to be a shorter reaction as it felt more expository than the Smith/Ragan chapter.